task_autopsy

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals the output format (manner/evidence/verdict/death-code D-01~D-09), providing useful behavioral insight into what the report contains. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or any prerequisites like task completion status.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output format without unnecessary words. It front-loads the key action and includes specific format details in parentheses, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and the report format, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It is largely complete for a basic report-generating tool, though it could add usage guidance and parameter edge-case details for full completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is one required parameter, jobDir, and the schema provides no description (0% coverage). The description clarifies that jobDir is a 'task directory', adding minimal meaning beyond the parameter name. It does not specify path format, existence requirements, or whether relative/absolute paths are accepted, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool generates an autopsy report for a task directory, using the specific verb 'generate' and a distinct resource. It also specifies the format (autopsy-spec with manner/evidence/verdict/death-code), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_run or task_kill.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for diagnosing a task's outcome, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. The context is somewhat implied by the tool's name and purpose, but no explicit guidance or alternatives are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.